Plaintiff must obtain probate or letters of administration of the will.

S.S. Subramani, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in C.S.No.216 of 1986, on the file of this Court, is the appellant before us.

2. The suit was instituted in forma pauperis, and on dismissal of the suit, this appeal was filed by the appellant as an indigent person.

.3. The material averments that are stated in the plaint are, that the plaint schedule property bearing Door No.22 (Old No.29), Pycrofts Road, Triplicane, Madras, originally belonged to one Sakala Subbarayalu Chetty, having purchased the same with his own funds, and he gave the same as ‘Stridhana’ to his daughter Seshamma. It is further said that at the time when the property was given as ‘Stridhana’, Seshamma was already married to Jila Venkata Krishnamma Chetty son of Jilla Narasimhalu Chetty. Seshamma died without issues in 1903, and thereafter her husband married Kamalamma alias Kanakamma as his second wife. It is further stated that after the death of the first wife, Kamalamma alias Kanakamma took the property as ‘Stridhana’ property from the first wife, claiming herself as sister of Seshmma. It is said that the second wife was collecting rent in respect of the plaint schedule property. She also died issueless in the year 1918, and thereafter, Jilla Venkatakrishnamma Chettty married one Lakshmi Thayaramma, who is the mother of the plaintiff. It is said that plaintiff’s mother was also enjoying the property, treating the same as ‘Stridhana’ property, and she died on 23. 1981. It is also said that plaintiff, being the only issue of her mother, is entitled to succeed to the plaint schedule property. It is said that the first defendant is obstructing her enjoyment of the property and that he is collecting rent from the tenants arrayed as defendants 2 to 4 in the suit. Plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for declaration of her title as absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for consequential reliefs which include the relief of mesne profits as well.

4. In the written statement filed by 1st defendant, he denied the title of plaintiff over any portion of the property. According to him, the property originally belonged to Sakala Subbarayalu Chetty and Venkatesa Chetty, they having obtained the same as per an indenture dated 23. 1889 from the Rt.Hon’ble Secretary of State for India in Council. Venkatesa Chetty executed a Will dated, 17. 1920 bequeathing his right over the property to his adopted son Venkatasubbiah Chetty, who died intestate, leaving his wife and two daughters, viz., Ranganayaki and Indira. According to the first defendant, there was a partition between the legal heirs of Venkatasubbiah Chetty on 112. 1962, and the plaint schedule property was taken by Indira, who in turn executed a Will on 6. 1972, bequeathing the property to the first defendant in this case. It is further stated that for the last 60 years, the first defendant’s predecessors have been in enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, and, even if the plaintiff had any right, title or interest over the suit property, the same is lost by long hostile adverse possession. It is also contended that the suit is barred by limitation. The first defendant also disputed the claim put forward by the plaintiff on the basis of various wills.

5. On the above pleadings, parties joined issue, and the learned Judge, after discussing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not title, right or interest in the plaint property. The learned Judge also found that the suit is barred by limitation, and that the right of the plaintiff is lost by long adverse possession by the first defendant and his predecessors. The suit was dismissed.

6. It is against the said judgment, plaintiff has preferred this appeal as an indigent person.

.7. Plaintiff claims the plaint schedule property as belonging to her on the ground that it originally belonged to Seshamma, first wife of Jilla Venkata Krishnamma Chetty, who is also the father of the plaintiff. It is her case that when